Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040016552025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/91/2025 Smti Lokam Yame Wife of Shri Lokam Ranjit, a permanent resident of Damin Town, PO and PS Damin, Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Lokam Tatup @ Lokam Artup Son of Late Lokam Chai, Damin Town, PO Damin, PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh 791118 Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Kirmani Lollen,Y Mugli,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Khoda Apa,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : Rintu Saikia, Mindo Taso,Idak Bam,Ligam Nochi Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 05.02.2026 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the MEL order/Settlement Agreement dated 07.05.2025, issued by the purported Customary Court (MEL), consisting of three Head Goan Buras from different villages. By the said MEL order/Settlement Agreement, the land dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent has been decided through the execution of the settlement agreement. 3. The settlement agreement/MEL order being relevant and subject matter of challenged is reproduced below: “Settlement Agreement In case connection of land dispute in between Smti Lokam Yame W/o Shri Lokam Ragik of Damin Town PO Damin, PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh and Shri Lokam Tatup S/o Lt. Lokam Chai of Damin Town P.O Damin, P.S Koloriang District Kurung Kumey A.P has been Settled on 6th May 2025 as per the Judgment decision. The following points has been agreed both the first and second party: 1. That First party Smti Lokam Yame here solemnly agreed as per the decision of judgment that the name of the land dispute case of Tinging to Kami Yerda (Forest Area) has been Divided 50//50%. 2. I Smti. Lokam Yame do here solemnly agreed that I will never repeat any complaint about this deed agreement in my near future. 3. That I shri Lokam Artup do here solemnly agreed about the (2) two points of first party I agreed and in the near future I will never repeat to first party. Page No.# 3/5 Judge-I First Party Nangram Tato Smti. Lokam Yame HGB Nangram W/o Lokam Ragik Judge-II Judge-III Second Party Sangkung Taniang Riya Tagung Shri Lokam Artup HGB, Sangkung HGB Nyolo S/o Lt. Lokam Chai” 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned MEL order dated 07.05.2025, instead of adjudicating the civil dispute in accordance with law and/or under the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2021”), the customary court purportedly settled the dispute in the form of a settlement agreement and directed the division of the disputed land in ratio 50:50 between the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Civil Courts Act, 2021, the customary court is required to adjudicate the civil dispute on merits, upon issuance of notice, hearing the parties. The record reveals that the customary court, instead of deciding the matter in the manner prescribed in the Act and/or under Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 [AFR, 1945], passed a direction in the form of a settlement agreement, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is beyond the scope of adjudicatory jurisdiction of customary court. 6. Mr. Bam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that being aggrieved by the settlement agreement dated 07.05.2025, the respondent filed an appeal before the purported Inter-Village Committee Court, Damin Circle, GBs Association, Damin, Arunachal Pradesh, challenging the settlement agreement. The appeal was allowed, and by an order dated Page No.# 4/5 26.07.2025, the settlement agreement dated 07.05.2025 was set aside. However, it is also an admitted position that the petitioner was neither impleaded nor afforded any opportunity of hearing in the said appellate proceedings and had no knowledge of the same. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, submits that since the order dated 07.05.2025, which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition, has already been set aside by the Inter-Village Committee, Damin Circle, GBs Association, Damin, Arunachal Pradesh, being the purported appellate customary court by its order dated 26.07.2025, prior to the filing of the present petition, and the said order has not been challenged before any other forum, the present revision petition has become infructuous. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in view of the order passed by the said appellate authority setting aside the settlement agreement, the respondent has no objection, if the present petition is allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that both the parties have mutually agreed for setting aside of the impugned settlement agreement. 10. This court is of the considered view that the impugned settlement agreement was passed without proper adjudication, as mandated under Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021. Further, the subsequent purported appellate forum’s order, having been passed without notice and hearing to the petitioner, cannot be relied upon to defeat the present proceedings. Thus, there exists a jurisdictional and procedural error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the consent of both the parties, this court deems it appropriate to Page No.# 5/5 interfere with the impugned agreement. 12. Accordingly, the impugned settlement/direction dated 07.05.2025 passed by the customary court in the disputed civil matter is hereby set aside. 13. The dispute between the parties shall stand remitted to the competent customary court/appropriate civil forum for fresh adjudication, strictly in accordance with law. 14. It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the dispute. 15. The petition is allowed in the above terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant